So now this apparently amazing feat that was rushed into publication is actually just an out of date DB.

Peer review also protects the authors for making a fool of themselves. QED.

Looks like it was peer (or rather superior) reviewed. I don't think the author was trying to be malicious and just wanted to blog about something cool they found.

	▲	igleria a day ago \| parent [-]
		That is not how peer review works typically, but at least the guy did try to confirm with actual experts. So no, no evil here.

▲

spiderice a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Perhaps you should get your comments peer reviewed then? Because between you and the author, only one of you made a fool of themselves, and I quite enjoyed the article.

	▲	igleria a day ago \| parent [-]
		I guess you just peer reviewed my comment then, thanks.